From aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Mon Apr 1 08:15:45 1996 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA00427 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:15:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [141.114.137.97] ([141.114.137.97]) by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA10318 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 06:15:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 06:15:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199604011115.GAA10318@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us> X-Authentication-Warning: gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us: Host [141.114.137.97] didn't use HELO protocol X-Sender: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: aftgoul@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (Tammy Gould) Subject: Hazard Communication and WPS So, what happened to the proposed rule published simultaneously with the 1992 WPS that would clarify the "overlap" between EPA's WPS and OSHA's HazComm? I've been asked to speak about both programs next week at a greenhouse growers meeting and they have asked me to tell them what they need to do to comply with each of them. Individually, I am familiar with both, but has anything been done to avoid some of the redundancy, particularly with the training aspects? Tammy Gould Maine Board of Pesticides Control From GRIER@smtp.dda.state.de.us Mon Apr 1 09:36:12 1996 Received: from smtp.dda.state.de.us (smtp.dda.state.de.us [167.21.131.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA03310 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 09:36:08 -0800 (PST) From: GRIER@smtp.dda.state.de.us Received: from Domain1-Message_Server by smtp.dda.state.de.us with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:35:53 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:35:30 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: potato plantings We have two questions for whoever . . . 1) Monitor 10G, Furadan 4F and other insecticides are applied in furrow, as potatoes are planted. Two guys typically ride on the planter to level the seed and make sure it is feeding through. Are these guys handlers? Are they workers? If they are workers, they are certainly in the field before the 4 hour limit. I would consider them early entry "no contact" workers. 2) The Furadan 4F requires posting of the field. The ag employer's field is 20 miles from any of his other farms (so we're out of the 1/4 mile range); the workers are "riding" on the planter (so they know the pesticide is being applied and we believe they have been orally notified). The problem is that it will take three days to plant the one field. Any recommendations on "How to Comply". Is posting necessary? From pat.marer@wserver.ipm.ucdavis.edu Mon Apr 1 10:56:48 1996 Received: from axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu (axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu [128.120.83.41]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA06810 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu; id AA05491; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 11:02:31 -0800 Message-Id: Date: 1 Apr 1996 10:43:23 U From: "Pat Marer" Subject: UPDATE: Training Verificati To: "Forum WPS " X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2 4/1/96 10:24 AM UPDATE: Training Verification in Arizona Paul Baker of the U of A Pesticide Information and Training Office just updated me on the status of WPS Training Verification cards in Arizona. Here's the word: WPS Worker Verification Cards (blue cards) issued in California (and other states) are accepted in Arizona. The confusion brought to our attention by Bob Roach last week applied to TRAINERS, not the trained workers. People who are qualified to TRAIN workers in California ARE NOT qualified to train workers in Arizona (and issue blue cards) unless they meet Arizona's requirements. Likewise, people who are qualified to train workers in Arizona are not qualified to train workers in California unless they meet California's requirements. Whew! What I've been telling the trainers we've trained in California for the past two years is correct. Patrick J. Marer Pesticide Training Coordinator Statewide IPM Project University of California Davis, CA 95616 From ssouther@PPENT1.PPATH.NCSU.EDU Mon Apr 1 13:23:57 1996 Received: from cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu (cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.224]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA12720 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:23:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppent1.ppath.ncsu.edu by cc09ss.unity.ncsu.edu (5.67b/SYSTEMS 12-28-92 15:15:00) id AA10548; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:23:52 -0500 Posted-Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:23:12 EST5EDT Received: from PPENT1/SpoolDir by ppent1.ppath.ncsu.edu (Mercury 1.21); 1 Apr 96 16:23:45 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by PPENT1 (Mercury 1.21); 1 Apr 96 16:23:20 EST5EDT From: "Sterling Southern" To: WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:23:12 EST5EDT Subject: (Fwd) Re: potato plantings Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.20) Message-Id: <10586286641@ppent1.ppath.ncsu.edu> GRIER@smtp.dda.state.de.us recently asked: > We have two questions for whoever . . . 1) Monitor 10G, Furadan 4F > and other insecticides are applied in furrow, as potatoes are planted. > Two guys typically ride on the planter to level the seed and make sure it > is feeding through. Are these guys handlers? Are they workers? If > they are workers, they are certainly in the field before the 4 hour limit. > I would consider them early entry "no contact" workers. In North Carolina, pesticides are sometimes applied in the transplant water when tobacco is transplanted in the field. We have been told by our regulatory agency that the people riding the transplanter to feed plants into the setter are (if an insecticide is added to the transplant water being delivered in the same operation) "applicators" and have to comply with the protective equipment requirements for applicators. Obviously, however, they can be in the field being treated. By the way, the insecticide in question in tobacco transplanting, acephate, is relatively less toxic (acute) than the ones you mention and requires less obtrusive PPE. > 2) The Furadan 4F requires posting of the field. The ag employer's field > is 20 miles from any of his other farms (so we're out of the 1/4 mile > range); the workers are "riding" on the planter (so they know the > pesticide is being applied and we believe they have been orally notified). > The problem is that it will take three days to plant the one field. Any > recommendations on "How to Comply". Is posting necessary? Someone else will have to try this one. ***************************************************************************** * Sterling Southern - Dept. of Entomology - N.C. State Univ. * Box 7613, Raleigh NC 27695 - Sterling_Southern@ncsu.edu * Phone: 919-515-2748 - Fax: 919-515-7746 From HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Mon Apr 1 13:50:39 1996 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA13733 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:50:33 -0800 (PST) From: HORTON.JANE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Received: from lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id QAA26982; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:48:57 -0500 Received: from cc:Mail by lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov id AA828405826; Mon, 01 Apr 96 16:42:32 EST Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 16:42:32 EST Message-Id: <9603018284.AA828405826@lancelot.rtptok.epa.gov> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: potato plantings ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: potato plantings Author: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU at IN Date: 4.1.96 12:51 Received: by ccmail from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov From owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU X-Envelope-From: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Received: from are.Berkeley.EDU by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id MAA11178; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:55:34 -0500 Received: from host (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA03479; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 09:38:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.dda.state.de.us (smtp.dda.state.de.us [167.21.131.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA03310 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 09:36:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from Domain1-Message_Server by smtp.dda.state.de.us with WordPerfect_Office; Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:35:53 -0500 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 12:35:30 -0500 Reply-To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Sender: owner-wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Precedence: bulk From: GRIER@smtp.dda.state.de.us To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: potato plantings X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN We have two questions for whoever . . . 1) Monitor 10G, Furadan 4F and other insecticides are applied in furrow, as potatoes are planted. Two guys typically ride on the planter to level the seed and make sure it is feeding through. Are these guys handlers? Are they workers? If they are workers, they are certainly in the field before the 4 hour limit. I would consider them early entry "no contact" workers. If the pesticide is being applied at the same time as the seed into the furrows and the two guys have contact with seed/pesticide mixture then they would be handlers. If they are riding on a tractor above and apart from any treated areas with absoloutely no contact with pesticide treated surfaces then - they are "no contact" workers. 2) The Furadan 4F requires posting of the field. The ag employer's field is 20 miles from any of his other farms (so we're out of the 1/4 mile range); the workers are "riding" on the planter (so they know the pesticide is being applied and we believe they have been orally notified). The problem is that it will take three days to plant the one field. Any recommendations on "How to Comply". Is posting necessary? If the employer can assure that none of his employees will be walking through or within one 1/4 mile of the treated field - and everyone else is present during application then there is no need to post the field. (see 170.120 (b)(3)) Jane Horton Region 4 EPA From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Mon Apr 1 15:58:56 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.105] (gia5mac25.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.105]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA17621 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 15:58:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 15:59:20 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: Update on Training Verification > People who are qualified to TRAIN workers >in California ARE NOT qualified to train workers in Arizona (and issue blue >cards) unless they meet Arizona's requirements. Likewise, people who are >qualified to train workers in Arizona are not qualified to train workers in >California unless they meet California's requirements. After first reading this clarification today, I nodded my head and filed it away (the message). But reviewing it later to help answer a question has triggered my wait-a-minute reflex. The story that Pat relays from Paul implies that some EPA-authorized blue cards would not be honored in Arizona, simply because they have been awarded in California. Suppose a trainer who has participated in a California train-the-trainer course (and thereby qualifies with California DPR as a trainer of workers) holds a session in El Centro, CA, and hands out blue cards to attendees. The workers who receive the cards can then take them across the state border to Arizona, where the cards would have to be honored as proof of adequate WPS training. Unless I misunderstand, if that same trainer conducted the same session in Yuma, the cards that he distributes would not be valid in Arizona. Same trainer, same session content, and same card; but different training site, so different locus of acceptance. Makes sense? And what about the grower who wants to use blue-card possession as an employee selection criterion? Isn't it unreasonable to expect him to discern which WPS training verification cards were issued in another state? --Howard From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Tue Apr 2 06:40:40 1996 Received: from ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us [164.107.107.13]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA02532 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 06:40:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10/4.940426) id JAA23139; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:40:35 -0500 Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id JAA01460; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:40:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:53:55 -0500 (EST) From: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: potato plantings To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 GRIER@SMTP.DDA.STATE.DE.US wrote: > We have two questions for whoever . . . 1) Monitor 10G, Furadan 4F > and other insecticides are applied in furrow, as potatoes are planted. > Two guys typically ride on the planter to level the seed and make sure it > is feeding through. Are these guys handlers? Are they workers? If > they are workers, they are certainly in the field before the 4 hour limit. > I would consider them early entry "no contact" workers. Sally writes: In my opinion, the persons riding on the planter (or are otherwise necessarily in the treated area during an application) are "pesticide handlers" under the WPS. As such they would have to be trained and equipped as handlers and receive other WPS handler protections (decontamination, access to the labeling, etc.) They cannot be classified as early entry "no contact" workers, since the WPS prohibits workers from entering or remaining in a treated area during application. On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 GRIER@SMTP.DDA.STATE.DE.US wrote: > 2) The Furadan 4F requires posting of the field. The ag employer's field > is 20 miles from any of his other farms (so we're out of the 1/4 mile > range); the workers are "riding" on the planter (so they know the > pesticide is being applied and we believe they have been orally notified). > The problem is that it will take three days to plant the one field. Any > recommendations on "How to Comply". Is posting necessary? > Sally writes: In my opinion, the "notice to workers" provisions of the WPS would not apply to this situation as described. Treated areas need not be posted if no workers will be in the treated area or walk within 1/4 mile of the treated area during the pesticide application or while the REI is in effect OR the only workers for whom you need to post applied (or supervised the application of) the pesticide and are aware of all the information required to be given in the oral warning. See "Exceptions to Worker Notification" page 41-42 in the HOW-TO-COMPLY manual. Since the persons in the treated area during application are handlers participating in the application and have received the information that would be given as an oral warning, warning signs need not be posted to protect these persons. This holds true EVEN if these people enter or walk within 1/4 mile of the treated area after application is complete, but the REI is still in effect. They may return to perform WPS permitted tasks in or near the treated area without triggering the posting requirement. Treated area posting would be triggered if, during the REI, workers who did not participate in the application enter the treated area even if the workers are in vehicles. Treated area posting would also be triggered if, during the REI, workers on foot (not in vehicles) come within 1/4 mile of the treated area. The question about the application lasting three days is still germane, since it applies to how long the area remains under an REI and other WPS triggers related to when the REI has expired. In my opinion, employers have more than one option in these situations. They may opt to declare the entire area the "treated area" for purposes of description at the central notice board and for oral warnings (if required), etc. In this situation, the entire area is considered under application from the start of the first day of application until the end of the application on the third day. Employers must keep everyone (workers and other persons) except handlers involved in the application out of the entire area during those three days and the REI begins at the end of application on the third day. Another option is to declare the area treated each day as a separate treated area. It must be listed separately at the central notice board and in any oral warnings. However, the REI for that area begins at the end of application that day and employers need not be concerned about entrance by "other persons" (utility workers, trespassers, etc) except while application is ongoing during the day. -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From GRIER@smtp.dda.state.de.us Tue Apr 2 06:49:24 1996 Received: from smtp.dda.state.de.us (smtp.dda.state.de.us [167.21.131.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA02731 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 06:49:22 -0800 (PST) From: GRIER@smtp.dda.state.de.us Received: from Domain1-Message_Server by smtp.dda.state.de.us with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:49:07 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:48:40 -0500 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Potato Plantings I need to correct my earlier statement . . . Mocap 10G, not Monitor was applied in the one situation. In reading the Mocap 10G and Furadan 4F labels, they state that "Only protected handlers may be in the area during application". So regardless, the potato planter "riders" must be trained as handlers. I have also been informed that people walking behind transplanters are considered "handlers". From kaiser@ssnet.com Tue Apr 2 08:45:39 1996 Received: from marlin.ssnet.com (kaiser@marlin.ssnet.com [205.216.96.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA05816 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kaiser@localhost) by marlin.ssnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03767; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:45:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:45:22 -0500 (EST) From: Roger Kaiser To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Update on Training Verification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Regarding who and where the training is done (for the blue cards). In DE we must take a test before we are allowed to drive a car. We are given a license if we pass the test. We can take this license and can legally drive in NJ and most other states (I'm not sure about CA, they have many of their own rules.) The training is different, the trainers are different, and the criteria for good driving is different, but we can all use our license from DE and drive in other states. However, the Highway patrol in DE cannot go to NJ and issue a license. Same test as is given in DE, but different state. Any problems? No, we all accept this. As I understand the rule, a card issued in CA is good in AZ. However, a trainner that is certified in CA is not certified in AZ. If a grower hires a worker who has a card issued by a trainer who broke the law, can the grower or worker be held responsible? I think not. Let's not make things more complicated than they already are. From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Tue Apr 2 09:07:30 1996 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA06939 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:07:28 -0800 (PST) From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:09:36 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:11:39 -0800 To: kaiser@ssnet.com Cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Update on Training Verification -Reply Believe it or not, California does recognize driver's licenses from other states. BUT. if you take a job or otherwise establish residency in California, you must change vehicle registration within 10 days. I suspect it is really a tax issue. California wants the income from vehicle property tax that is collected with registrations. I am not sure about continuing to drive on your old state's driver's license though. RoyR From 73507.555@compuserve.com Tue Apr 2 21:16:15 1996 Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com (dub-img-3.compuserve.com [198.4.9.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA02060 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:16:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id AAA25143; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 00:15:43 -0500 Date: 03 Apr 96 00:11:19 EST From: Bob Roach <73507.555@compuserve.com> To: "'INTERNET:wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU'" Subject: Training Verification Message-ID: <960403051118_73507.555_HHB28-1@CompuServe.COM> Pat Marer said: The confusion brought to our attention by Bob Roach last week applied to TRAINERS, not the trained workers. People who are qualified to TRAIN workers in California ARE NOT qualified to train workers in Arizona (and issue blue cards) unless they meet Arizona's requirements. Likewise, people who are qualified to train workers in Arizona are not qualified to train workers in California unless they meet California's requirements. I'm glad we are getting this straightened out. I would like to be clear what Arizona's requirements are. As I read them, they must either 1) hold a current restricted use certification for certified applicators, 2) complete a pesticide train-the-trainer program approved by the Department (AZ) or 3) be designated as a trainer of certified applicators or pesticide handlers by a state, tribal or federal agency having jurisdiction. I am not quite sure what the last part of that means exactly. It seems clear that there is no reciprocity between these 2 states as far as trainer qualifications. I hope the field enforcement staff in Arizona will be accepting any training cards and not just those with serial numbers on their list. The question still remains as to whether the workers are really being required to have training cards in their possession at the work site. I have a copy of some Arizona regulations, Title 3, Chapter 3, part R3-3-1002. They speak to how the agricultural employer shall assure that a worker has been trained by visually examining the card. If the employer has no reasonable basis to believe that the card is invalid, that determination shall meet the requirements of assuring that the worker has been trained. They go on to say that the worker does not possess a valid training verification card if: the card has not been issued in accordance with this rule, the card was not issued to the bearer or the card has expired. It seems like the employer can assure that the worker was trained if they have "no reasonable basis to believe" the card is invalid and yet the card may be invalid (say it was not issued in accordance with the rule.) Is the employer in violation of this section or has the employer fulfilled his or her obligation under the law? The regulation goes on to say that worker and handler verification cards from all other federally approved worker safety training programs shall be accepted in Arizona. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard Rosenberg said: Same trainer, same session content, and same card; but different training site, so different locus of acceptance. Makes sense? I think you have a point Howard. Why can't we have a reciprocity agreement between these two states that have so many agricultural employers operating between them? And what about the grower who wants to use blue-card possession as an employee selection criterion? Isn't it unreasonable to expect him to discern which WPS training verification cards were issued in another state? It is OK if they were issued in another state, as long as the trainer was qualified in that state and following all the rules. Of course the employer has no way to know if this is so. I am under the impression that the apparently valid training verification card is to be accepted as prima facie evidence that the worker has been trained. The problem I think the Arizona enforcement personnel is having is how do they verify that the workers have been trained. I know that simply asking a worker is not always a good indication. Sometimes they say they have been trained so as not to cause trouble. Sometimes they say they have not been trained because they do not understand what the inspector is asking or cannot discern the significance of the pesticide safety training, which may have been a 25 minute part of a day-long training and intake process. Even asking content questions is an unreliable measure because they may have picked up the information from another source, or they may have failed to pay attention during the training. Before issuing a citation, enforcement usually likes to have some solid evidence. What the labor contractor told me is that they were first asking to see the workers cards and then questioning a few workers apart from the employer. If the requirement being enforced is that "the agricultural employer shall assure that each worker has received pesticide safety training during the last 5 years" and if the employer shall assure this by visually examining the card and determining there is no "reasonable basis" to believe the card to be invalid, what would be the point of requiring worker possession of the card in the field? Bob Roach From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed Apr 3 08:28:26 1996 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA10777 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 08:28:24 -0800 (PST) From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 03 Apr 1996 08:30:32 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 08:32:39 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU, 73507.555@compuserve.com Subject: Training Verification -Reply I know of nothing in the WPS that requires the worker to carry the training verification card while working! I also do not think this would be a good requirement in any event. While I know that there are no record keeping requirements for the employer, I think it would be very risky if the employer did not at least record the employee's name and the serial number of the card presented. Concern has been previoualy expressed about cards bought at flea markets. That's not the employer's concern. If the card looks reasonably authenthic, the employer can and should accept it. It's up to government enforcers to track down the source of misused cards. They were assigned to some trainer, so that is the person to go after, for lax security if nothing else. Let's be realistic, how much would you be willing to pay to avoid watching a 1 hour video? I think many of us in government (all areas-not just pesticides) are being caught up in command and control and losing sight of the real goal. I have said from the start that most of the WPS appears to have been designed for "civil " enforcement, or at best complaint based enforcement. I have some of the same questions that Bob has on this issue. ROYR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Roach wrote in partresponding to this issue: Before issuing a citation, enforcement usually likes to have some solid evidence. What the labor contractor told me is that they were first asking to see the workers cards and then questioning a few workers apart from the employer. If the requirement being enforced is that "the agricultural employer shall assure that each worker has received pesticide safety training during the last 5 years" and if the employer shall assure this by visually examining the card and determining there is no "reasonable basis" to believe the card to be invalid, what would be the point of requiring worker possession of the card in the field? From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Apr 5 11:36:28 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.105] (gia5mac25.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.105]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA29505 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:36:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:36:50 -0800 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: forward: EPA Notice of Public Meetings [Federal Register: April 5, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 67)] [Notices] [Page 15256-15257] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-00429; FRL-5360-8] Worker Protection Standard; Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meetings. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is holding a series of public meetings to solicit information from workers, growers and others regarding regulations designed to protect agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The first meeting was held in Winter Haven, Florida on February 22, 1996. The meetings are part of EPA's commitment to monitor and evaluate the impact and performance of the Worker Protection regulations. The public meetings are designed to provide an opportunity for those directly affected by the regulations to relay their experiences after the regulations' first full year of implementation. By reaching out to those on the frontlines and for whom these regulations are intended to provide public health protection, EPA will better understand how the program is working and where meaningful improvements should be made. The meetings are open to the public. DATES: The following is the schedule for the remaining public meetings: April 10, 1996, Stoneville, Mississippi April 24, 1996, McAllen, Texas June 19, 1996, Pasco, Washington June 26, 1996, Biglerville, Pennsylvania July 23, 1996, Fresno (area), California July 25, 1996, Monterrey (area), California [note: The Monterey meeting will be held at the Salinas Community Center.] August 7, 1996, Portageville, Missouri August 21, 1996, Tipton, Indiana The date and location for a public meeting in Puerto Rico will be announced at a later date. There will not be a public meeting scheduled in Washington, DC as was previously noted. - ADDRESSES: The April 10, 1996 meeting will be held at the Delta Research and Extension Center, Old Leland Road, Stoneville, Mississippi. The April 24, 1996 meeting will be held at the McAllen International Civic Center, Tourist Center Building, 1300 S. 10th St., McAllen, Texas. Registration for both meetings will begin at 5 p.m., and the public meetings will begin at 7 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Heying, Mail Code 7506C, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (703) 305-7164, Fax: (703) 308-2962, or EPA WPS representatives in regions hosting public meetings. California meeting: Mary Grisier, (415) 744-1095. Indiana meeting: Don Baumgartner, (312) 886-7835. Mississippi meeting: Jane Horton, (404) 347-3555, ext. 6975. Missouri meeting: Glen Yager, (913) 551-7296 or Kathleen Fenton, (913) 551-7874. Pennsylvania meeting: Magda Rodriguez-Hunt, (215) 587-0442. Puerto Rico meeting: Fred Kozak, (908) 321-6769. Texas meeting: Jerry Oglesby, (214) 665-7563. Washington meeting: Allan Welch, (206) 553-1980. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In 1992, EPA issued final regulations governing the protection of employees on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses from occupational exposures to agricultural pesticides. The WPS covers both workers in areas treated with pesticides, and employees who handle (mix, load, apply, etc.) pesticides. More specifically, the provisions of the Standard are intended to: Inform employees about the hazards of pesticides: By requiring provisions for basic safety training, posting and distribution of information about the pesticides; and Eliminate exposure to pesticides: [[Page 15257]] By prohibiting against the application of pesticides in a way that would cause exposure to people, By requiring time-limited restrictions for workers to return to areas following the application of pesticides, and By requiring provisions for workers and handlers to wear proper protective clothing/equipment; and Mitigate exposures that occur: By requiring arrangements for the supply of soap, water, and towels in the case of pesticide exposure, and By requiring provisions for emergency assistance. II. Information Sought by EPA EPA believes that agricultural workers, handlers and growers are best able to provide unique insights on the effects of the WPS requirements. Their input will be supplemented by data generated from other sources during the course of EPA's longer-term evaluation effort. As a follow-up to the public meetings, EPA will develop a summary of information gained. These tools will be used to develop strategies for improving the administration of the WPS. The Agency is specifically interested in hearing public comment, or receiving written comment, on the following topics. 1. Assistance from regulatory partners and others involved with the WPS. 2. Usefulness of available assistance. 3. Understanding WPS requirements. 4. Success in implementing the requirements. 5. Difficulties in implementing the requirements. 6. Suggestions to improve implementation. III. Registration to Make Comments Persons who wish to speak at the public meeting are encouraged to register at the meeting location. The Agency encourages parties to submit data to substantiate comments whenever possible. All comments, as well as information gathered at the public meetings will be available for public inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except legal holidays) at the Public Response and Program Resource Branch, Field Operations Division, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Information submitted as part of any comment may be claimed as confidential by marking any or all of that information as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by the Agency without prior notice to the submitter. The Agency anticipates that most of the comments will not be classified as CBI, and prefers that all information submitted be publicly available. Any records or transcripts of the open meetings will be considered public information and cannot be declared CBI. IV. Structure of the Meeting EPA will open the meeting with brief introductory comments. EPA will then invite those parties who have registered to present their comments. EPA anticipates that each speaker will be permitted 5 minutes to make comments. After each speaker, Agency and state representatives may ask the presenter questions of clarification. The Agency reserves the right to adjust the time for presenters depending on the number of speakers. Members of the public are encouraged to submit written documentation to EPA at the meeting to ensure that their entire position goes on record in the event that time does not permit a complete oral presentation. Any information may be delivered to Jeanne Heying at the address stated earlier in this Notice. Dated: April 2, 1996. William L. Jordan, Director, Field Operations Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 96-8654 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F From pandre@mail.state.mo.us Thu Apr 11 07:20:04 1996 Received: from services (services.state.mo.us [168.166.0.67]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA26212 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from services by services (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA02157; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:22:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:22:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Andre X-Sender: pandre@services To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Status EPA vs. OSHA? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is a follow up and a "reasking" of a question posted to the forum near the beginning of April. Has there been any clarification concerning the overlap between the EPA WPS and OSHA's HazComm? As was stated in the previous message, this was initially discussed several years ago, but nothing has been mentioned since. We do get inquiries trying to figure out who's in charge of what. Paul - Missouri Dept. of Ag. From BAUMGARTNER.DONALD@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Thu Apr 11 11:56:35 1996 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA05515 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:56:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.6.9/1.34) id OAA14266; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:55:39 -0400 Received: from RTPMAINHUB-Message_Server by ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:54:02 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:15:49 -0400 From: DONALD BAUMGARTNER To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Subject: Hazard Communication and WPS -Reply In response to Paul Andre's (Missouri Dept. Ag.) desire too for an update regarding WPS hazard communication, I provide below the response provided initially to Ms. Gould of Maine who initiated the question recently. *************************************************** Dear Tammy, To be honest, NOTHING significant has happened on the WPS Hazard Communication amendment which was published in 1992. On several ocassions EPA HQ attempted to directly address this issue, and each time any final determination was postponed for more important work (Agency address Congress attack on WPS, drafting the 5 May amendments, and the latest, Government suhutdowns). While on detail in D.C. last September I tried to revive this issue, and arrived at several possible solutions for the Agency, but it was again "tabled" for a later date as decided by "Upper Management" , in part because the worker advocacy groups contacted by HQ did not want the WPS picture cluttered any further at his time, or to draw attention to it. Personally, we probably will not see any activity here for at least another year or more, depending on worker advocates lobby for it. Now, they are more concerned about enforcement and compliance of the main points under the WPS. Hope that this helps. Donald Baumgartner U.S. EPA Region 5 ************************************* >>> Tammy Gould 4/1/96, 05:15am >>>So, what happened to the proposed rule published simultaneously with the 1992 WPS that would clarify the "overlap" between EPA's WPS and OSHA's HazComm? I've been asked to speak about both programs next week at a greenhouse growers meeting and they have asked me to tell them what they need to do to comply with each of them. Individually, I am familiar with both, but has anything been done to avoid some of the redundancy, particularly with the training aspects? Tammy Gould Maine Board of Pesticides Control From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Mon Apr 22 07:16:17 1996 Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu (root@guilder.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.181]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA05991 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT) From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.7.5/UCD3.5.1) id HAA04084; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604221416.HAA04084@guilder.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: news from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... Along with growers and other EPA "qualified" fieldworker pesticide safety trainers, an energetic group of bilingual Americorps volunteers in the southern San Joaquin Valley provide free on-site training. They've issued training verification (blue) cards to over 20,000 workers. ... Scheduling's flexible. Classes, capped at 40 workers, must have seating and shade. ... A deputy Ag Commissioner and I've audited their work, and confer high marks. ... Contact these instructors in: DELANO, Delfina Herrera and Alicia Medina, (805) 725-0803; VISALIA, Mary Bautista and Dolores Flores, (209) 627-0100; HANFORD, Carlos Lara and Leticia Sanchez, (209) 582-9253; SELMA, Lisa Aleman and Jenny Estrada, (209) 891-0135; and KERMAN, Javier Borboa, (209) 846-5331. "Fresno Clear!" From gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu Mon Apr 22 15:10:43 1996 Received: from nic.cerf.net (root@nic.cerf.net [192.102.249.3]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA22436 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cerfnet.com (dial-800.cerf.net [134.24.11.2]) by nic.cerf.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA19881 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604222210.PAA19881@nic.cerf.net> X-Sender: szbillik@peseta.ucdavis.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Gregorio Billikopf-Encina Subject: Re: news from fresno WPS forum: To add to what Steve Sutter has said, there are Americorps Volunteers doing training in many other counties, including San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and others. You may want to let farmers in your area know about this excellent resource. Gregorio At 07:16 AM 4/22/96 -0700, you wrote: > >This is Steve Sutter, UC Farm Advisor ... Along with growers and other EPA "qualified" field worker pesticide safety trainers, an energetic group of bilingual Americorps volunteers in the southern San Joaquin Valley provide free on-site training. They've issued training verification (blue) cards to over 20,000 workers. ... Scheduling's flexible. Classes, capped at 40 workers, must have seating and shade. ... A deputy Ag Commissioner and I've audited their work, and confer high marks. ... Contact these instructors in: DELANO, Delfina Herrera and Alicia Medina, (805) 725-0803; VISALIA, Mary Bautista and Dolores Flores, (209) 627-0100; HANFORD, Carlos Lara and Leticia Sanchez, (209) 582-9253; SELMA, Lisa Aleman and Jenny Estrada, (209) 891-0135; and KERMAN, Javier Borboa, (209) 846-5331. "Fresno Clear!" > > > > > > > > ******************************************** Gregorio Billikopf Encina (Gregory Encina Billikopf) University of California 733 County Center 3 Modesto, CA 95355 phone: (209) 525-6654 FAX: (209) 525-4969 e-mail: gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu ******************************************** From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Tue Apr 23 10:56:15 1996 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (root@franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA11345 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT) From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.7.5/UCD3.5.1) id KAA12387; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199604231756.KAA12387@franc.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: news from fresno Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu This is Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor ... A Coastal mushroom grower just called to ask about applying a pesticide with an REI of 24 hours as a smoke. The WPS greenhouse ventilation criteria says he can ventilate mechanically for 2 hours or, as an alternative, simply not ventilate for a day. ... Since the REI prohibits worker entry for 24 hours, why run the fans? ... Open up the cave guys, we're going in! ... "Fresno Clear." From ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Wed Apr 24 08:30:52 1996 Received: from cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov (cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov [134.186.193.1]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA04978 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT) From: ROYR@cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov Received: from PestReg-Message_Server by cdprsmtp.cdpr.ca.gov with WordPerfect_Office; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:34:24 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: WordPerfect Office 4.0 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:35:39 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Subject: news from fresno -Reply Right! Be advise that California has had a problem with the greenhouse ventilation criteria from August of 1992. The Department (DPR) developed and defended better and more flexable ventilation criteria. The EPA has recognized our efforts by granting equivalency to us on this item. If you happen to have a copy of our proposal it is section 6769. RoyR California Department of Pesticide Regulation >>> PestReg.Outside DPR."cefresno@ucdavis.edu" 04/23/96 10:56am This is Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor ... A Coastal mushroom grower just called to ask about applying a pesticide with an REI of 24 hours as a smoke. The WPS greenhouse ventilation criteria says he can ventilate mechanically for 2 hours or, as an alternative, simply not ventilate for a day. ... Since the REI prohibits worker entry for 24 hours, why run the fans? ... Open up the cave guys, we're going in! ... "Fresno Clear." From smcdonld@freenet.columbus.oh.us Wed Apr 24 09:14:04 1996 Received: from ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us [164.107.107.13]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA06464 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us by ronco.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.7.5/5.960408) id QAA01102; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 16:13:57 GMT Received: by acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us (8.6.10) id MAA16746; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:13:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:09:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Sally McDonald Sender: Sally McDonald Reply-To: Sally McDonald Subject: Re: news from fresno -Reply To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > Steve Sutter, UC Area Farm Advisor wrote... A Coastal mushroom > grower just called to ask about applying a pesticide with an REI of 24 > hours as a smoke. The WPS greenhouse ventilation criteria says he can > ventilate mechanically for 2 hours or, as an alternative, simply not > ventilate for a day. ... Since the REI prohibits worker entry for 24 hours, > why run the fans? ... Open up the cave guys, we're going in! ... "Fresno > Clear." > Sally replies: There is a distinct difference between the ventilation criteria and an REI. The ventilation criteria must be met before any person -- other than a trained and equipped handler involved in the application or performing tasks such as turning on or off ventilation equipment -- may enter the treated greenhouse. If, in the example mentioned, the mushroom grower ventilates for two hours immediately after application, then workers may enter the treated mushroom house during the remainder of the 24-hour REI to perform any tasks allowed during an REI -- including no-contact activities, short-term activities (such as watering), and emergency activities. If the grower does not ventilate for the 24-hour REI, then essentially no one may enter the entire mushroom house for that time period. Sally -- Sally A. McDonald, Information Impact 5837 Tartan Circle, Dublin, OH 43017 From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Wed Apr 24 14:46:41 1996 Received: from [128.32.251.91] (gia5mac11.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.91]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19229 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.3 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:46:44 -0700 To: wps-forum From: howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU (Howard R. Rosenberg) Subject: section 6769 of proposed California regs. Went into the archive and found the more flexible ventilation criteria that Roy refers to. From the regulatory revisions proposed by California DPR: 6769. Greenhouse Ventilation Criteria. When a pesticide with product labeling requiring respiratory protection for application is applied by any method, or when any pesticide is applied as a fumigant, smoke, mist, fog, or aerosol inside a greenhouse, ventilation shall continue until: (a) The concentration is measured and found not to exceed any pesticide product labeling standard; or (b) One of the following has occurred if there is no labeling standard: (1) Ten air exchanges are complete; (2) Two hours of mechanical ventilation, such as with fans; (3) Four hours of passive ventilation, such as opening vents, windows or doors; (4) Twenty-four hours with no ventilation; or (5) Any combination of percentage portions of (1), (2), (3), and (4) the sum of which equals 100%. --Howard